Three Months Into MiCA, One Rule Is Clear: A Crypto Licence Covers Only the Market That Issued It

Since the European Union’s (EU) deadline for crypto licenses on July 1, Binance has emerged as a primary case study in operating a crypto exchange in Europe without a local license. Just before the deadline, Binance withdrew its application in Greece and continued to serve select European customers through reverse solicitation.

This reverse solicitation operates under a narrow exemption allowing clients to engage with a foreign firm at their own initiative, with some trades routed via its Abu Dhabi entity, which holds a local license, as noted on the ADGM official website. However, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) maintains that such a license does not allow non-EU entities to actively solicit EU clients. Consequently, the regulator has requested confirmation from Binance on its compliance with these stipulations.

The situation illustrates the broader principle that obtaining a crypto license does not automatically permit operations across all markets. Nonetheless, a business must secure the relevant licenses to operate in each market it targets. This reinforces the notion that the best approach for firms looking to serve EU clients is to partner with or operate through an authorized provider within Europe.

The Challenges of Reverse Solicitation and Offshore Licenses

The framework outlined in Article 61 of MiCA clearly stipulates that firms lacking EU authorization can only service EU clients when the client’s initiative is exclusive. ESMA’s interpretation of this exemption is stringent, as it can classify nearly any advertising directed at EU residents as solicitation, encompassing a wide array of marketing channels.

In practice, this means that if a firm begins attracting EU clients through promotional efforts—such as advertisements or localized apps—it must obtain a MiCA license. A firm that has established a customer base through years of marketing initiatives will continue to be considered as having solicited those clients post-deadline.

A practical example can be seen with the case of MEXC. In September 2025, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets issued a warning that MEXC was servicing Dutch consumers without the necessary license. Evidence included aggressive local marketing efforts ahead of a blockchain conference sponsored by the firm. As a result, MEXC is now exiting the Dutch market and has instructed users to transfer their assets by October 31, 2026, with final offboarding scheduled for November 16. MEXC has recommended Bybit EU, which is licensed in Austria, as an alternative, though each client will need to establish a new account.

This scenario exemplifies how MiCA is enforced: the regulations apply across the EU, but enforcement is conducted by national regulators, meaning that specific firms may face unique scrutiny based on their jurisdictions.

Exploring Alternatives to MiCA Compliance

With reverse solicitation and reliance on offshore licenses largely unfeasible, businesses aiming to attract EU clientele have two primary avenues: collaborating with an already authorized provider or seeking their own MiCA authorization.

For entities looking to enter the market swiftly, partnering with an established crypto-asset service provider (CASP) is often an effective strategy. In this scenario, the business focuses on brand development and marketing, while the authorized CASP handles client contracts and compliance. This expedites market entry and allows firms to begin operations without awaiting the lengthy licensing process.

A notable example is Bitpanda, which has integrated its crypto offerings within the applications of banks such as N26 and Raiffeisen. This partnership approach enables Bitpanda to access millions of customers across Central and Eastern Europe without having to rely solely on its own license.

The second route entails obtaining a license independently, a process that can be protracted. Data from Block of Fame indicates that the number of listed providers surged from 243 to 349 in just a few months. Among these, the number of banks doubled as they leverage existing EU licenses, simplifying their entry into crypto services.

Key Considerations for Non-EU Licenses

Whether pursuing a partner or an independent route, businesses must comprehensively assess the regulatory landscape beyond the EU, as many licenses outside the region adhere to similar territorial regulations. Here are three crucial questions businesses should evaluate when considering licenses in other jurisdictions:

• Where are your clients located? Many regulators now mandate that services are licensed in relation to where the clients reside, as exemplified by measures in Brazil where foreign platforms must obtain authorizations for local operations.
• What market opportunities does the license afford? Some regions, like Canada, necessitate registration with multiple regulatory bodies, impacting how straightforward it is to operate legitimately.
• How durable is the regulatory setup? Continuous changes in licensing requirements are commonplace. Jurisdictions such as Kazakhstan and Australia are currently revising their frameworks, signaling that companies should plan for a landscape that evolves over time.

The necessity for continuous vigilance regarding licensing frameworks is paramount. While some licenses may appear advantageous now, shifting regulatory conditions could jeopardize long-term viability. Thus, companies must strategically combine licenses tailored to their target markets while maintaining flexibility to adapt as the regulatory environment shifts.

Anticipating Future Developments

As the November deadlines approach—marking MEXC’s exit from the Netherlands and Brazil’s filing deadline—the landscape for crypto regulations in Europe will undergo significant scrutiny. Binance’s stated commitment to pursuing a MiCA license reflects the ongoing evolution of compliance paradigms within the industry.

Over the coming months, industry participants will closely monitor how licensing strategies align with actual client locations and regulatory authorizations. Any misalignment presents a risk for firms operating in borrowed time. The outcome of this close watch will significantly inform future business strategies in the European crypto market.